Lewknor or Marwood

[Loren Varga]

Dear Group. I am having another problem with an ancestral line,
that of Pollard. Sir Lewis Pollard MP b.@1460-1526 with wife Agnes Hext.
Said to be son of Robert Pollard b.@1425 with wife, and here is my problem ,either Margaret Lewknor or Jane Marwood

Margaret was the daughter of Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys

Jane or perhaps Elizabeth daughter of William Marwood of Westcott and Elizabeth Squire.

Thanks in advance for any information!

Regards:
Loren

[John Higgins]

What exactly are your sources for either Margaret Lewknor or Jane Marwood as the wife of Robert Pollard - and what are your sources for the parents of the two ladies? I'm not aware of any source that supports either lady as the wife of Robert Pollard. Vivian's edition of the visitations of Devon simply says that he married an unnamed Lewknor - no further identification given.

[Will Johnson]

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 11:43:21 AM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 7:51:15 AM UTC-7, Loren Varga wrote:
> > Dear Group. I am having another problem with an ancestral line,
> > that of Pollard. Sir Lewis Pollard MP b.@1460-1526 with wife Agnes Hext.
> > Said to be son of Robert Pollard b.@1425 with wife, and here is my problem ,either Margaret Lewknor or Jane Marwood
> >
> > Margaret was the daughter of Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys
> >
> > Jane or perhaps Elizabeth daughter of William Marwood of Westcott and Elizabeth Squire.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any information!
> >
> > Regards:
> > Loren

Loren it's not either, it's both.

Lewis Pollard was co-heiress of his mother and an adult in 1483-85
That mother being Jane Marwood who was dead by 1486
She the daughter of
William /Marwood/ of Westacot in Marwood, co Devon; esq
and
Elizabeth /Squire/

He should be a completely distinct entry from any entry on
Lewis /Pollard/ of King's Nympton, co Devon; Knt
who m
Agnes /Hext/

These two men, may be the same person, but probably they are two distinct people

[John Higgins]

Of course you haven't provided any sources supporting your conclusion, But I think you are completely wrong in suggesting that there may have been two distinct individuals named Lewis Pollard. As a start you should read the biographies of Sir Lewis Pollard in ODNB and Wedgwood's HOP.

In addition, if you're relying on the lawsuit (Brougham v. Courtenay) that is a key source for the Wikipedia article on Sir Lewis Pollard as well as the Wikitree article on the same man (which draws different conclusions from the lawsuit), I think it's possible that the short description of the lawsuit is open to mis-interpretation. I think it's possible that Jane (Marwood) Pollard was the stepmother, rather than the mother, of Sir Sir Lewis Pollard - thus leaving open the possibility that his mother was actually a Lewknor.

[Will Johnson]

You cannot be the "son and heir" of your stepmother

[Will Johnson]

Here (again) is the complete wording which is in the archives as well

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/y-3w86ePv4A/KRAVdQmGmHIJ

Short title: Broughton v Courteney. Plaintiffs: John Broughton and Alice, his wife,...

Reference: C 1/58/142
Description:

Short title: Broughton v Courteney.

Plaintiffs: John Broughton and Alice, his wife, daughter of Elizabeth Squyer; and Lewis Pollard, son and heir of Jane Pollard, sister to the said Alice.

Defendants: Sir Philip Courteney, knight, and Elizabeth, his wife, executrix and previously the wife of William Merwode, whose first wife was the said Elizabeth Squyer.

Subject: Detention of deeds relating to messuages and land in Exeter, Barstaple, Wroughton, Neuport, Crydyho, Brampton, Beer ..., North Luscombe, Wydden, Molton, Uppecote, Maydenforth, Middelmerwode, Godcombe, and Godlegh. Devon, Somerset
Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

[John Higgins]

A stepson CAN be the heir of his stepmother. I'm suggesting that the summary of the legal case may be in error - not an impossibility.

You haven't yet explained, and given us evidence to support, WHY you think there are two separate men named Lewis Pollard.

[Loren Varga]

Is there anything known about a Squire Family seated in Devon with a daughter Elizabeth?

Regards:
Loren

[Will Johnson]

I said very clearly they *may* be the same person.
They should not be *forced* to be the same person.
That is my point.

[John Higgins]

Actually, what you said was:

"These two men, may be the same person, but probably they are two distinct people"

I guess you're backing off from "probably"....or do you have a basis for saying "probably" still?

[Will Johnson]

My basis is: I have a brain, and I think.
What is your basis for insisting they are the same person?

[John Higgins]

If you have a brain and you think, then you should be able to tell us WHY you think there are two individuals named Lewis Pollard. Evidence counts here - not what you "think".

So far I've seen evidence for only one Lewis Pollard. So what is the evidence that causes you to believe that "they are probably two distinct people".

[Will Johnson]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> So far I've seen evidence for only one Lewis Pollard. So what is the evidence that causes you to believe that "they are probably two distinct people".

Actually there is no evidence for *one* Lewis Pollard John.

We have *one* document saying his mother was Jane Marwood.
Then
We have *one* document saying his mother was a Miss Lewknor (unnamed)

We have zero documents saying these two documents are speaking about the exact same person.

YOU can make them the same person, have at it, no one is stopping you.
I am making them two people.

[John Higgins]

The documents that I've seen consistently show Lewis Pollard as the son of the same father, but differ as to who his mother was (i.e., his father apparently had two wives, who don't necessarily appear together in any source). That, of course, is not uncommon in medieval genealogy. But it's not a reason to conclude that there were two individuals named Lewis Pollard.

[Gawin]

According to the 1564 Visitation of Devon (p. 191), Sir Lewis Pollard (Justice) was the son of Robert Pollard and Joan, daughter of William Marwood and Agnes Squire. But it also states Agnes died without issue (d.s.p.).

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Visitation_of_the_County_of_Devon_in/Nio6AQAAMAAJ

[taf]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:34:58 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

> You cannot be the "son and heir" of your stepmother

No, but you can _claim_ to be son and heir of the woman who was actually your stepmother in a lawsuit, just hoping you get away with it. It is not uncommon in such suits to see mutually incompatible claims of inheritance by descent.

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:48:31 PM UTC-7, Gawin wrote:
> According to the 1564 Visitation of Devon (p. 191), Sir Lewis Pollard (Justice) was the son of Robert Pollard and Joan, daughter of William Marwood and Agnes Squire. But it also states Agnes died without issue (d.s.p.).
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Visitation_of_the_County_of_Devon_in/Nio6AQAAMAAJ

More importantly, according to the Pollard pedigree on p. 178 of the 1564 visitation, the same Robert Pollard who married Joan Marwood also married _____Lewknor. Assuming we and not just going to reject the visitation out of hand, that makes it harder to argue that there were two Lewis Pollards, who would thus have the same father but different mothers.

There may well have been multiple Lewis Pollards at this time, but it sure doen't look like one was son of Joan Marwood and the other of Lewknor.

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:49:04 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

> Actually there is no evidence for *one* Lewis Pollard John.
>
> We have *one* document saying his mother was Jane Marwood.
> Then
> We have *one* document saying his mother was a Miss Lewknor (unnamed)

Actually, we don't. Vivian's Visitations (the source for the Lewknor maternity) is *not* a document, just an occasionally-sloppy and overreaching secondary source.

> We have zero documents saying these two documents are speaking about the exact same person.

See posts about the actual 1564 visitation, rather than Vivians flawed rendering of it. In the Pollard pedigree it makes the same Robert marry both women, and in the Squire pedigree it shows Lewis as son of Robert Pollard by Joan Marwood, daughter of William Marwood and Agnes Squire. While this last name differs from the lawsuit, they are clearly representing the same relationships. Thus you have two documents both calling Lewis son of Joan/Jane Marwood, and one sometimes-sloppy natiquarian calling Lewis son of the same Robert Pollard's other wife. I know what conclusion I would reach regarding them being the same Lewis.

> YOU can make them the same person, have at it, no one is stopping you.
> I am making them two people.

You might want to rethink that.

taf

[taf]

Not worth speculating when one can simply look and see. The suit involves:

"John Broughton and Alice his wyffe, and Lewis Pollard son and heir to Jane Pollard nowe dede suster to the seid Alice doughters and heires of one Elizabeth Squyer, that where one William Merwode toke to wyffe the seid Elizabeth and was possessid as in her right of . . . [followed by a description of lands and woods] . . . durynge the lyfe of the seid Elizabeth, and after her dissese the seid WIlliam toke to wyfe one Elizabeth now the wyfe of Sir Philip Courteney knight . . ."

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no58/IMG_0278.htm

The summary looks pretty accurate to me.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:17:39 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> See posts about the actual 1564 visitation, rather than Vivians flawed rendering of
> it. In the Pollard pedigree it makes the same Robert marry both women, and in the
> Squire pedigree it shows Lewis as son of Robert Pollard by Joan Marwood, daughter
> of William Marwood and Agnes Squire. While this last name differs from the lawsuit,
> they are clearly representing the same relationships.

On this difference, I suspect it is the published visitation that is flawed. The compiler only had access to derivative copies, and the pedigree shows Agnes Squires d.s.p. marrying William Marwood, who then married Elizabeth Asheton and had a son William, with Joan being shown as daughter of the Agnes who d.s.p. (sic). I suspect that the intent was to show two Squires daughters, an Agnes who d.s.p. and an Elizabeth who married William Marwood and had a daughter, but some confusion over William's other wife being named Elizabeth led the two Squires daughters to be compressed into one who both d.s.p. _and_ had a daughter.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:17:39 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:49:04 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Actually there is no evidence for *one* Lewis Pollard John.
> >
> > We have *one* document saying his mother was Jane Marwood.
> > Then
> > We have *one* document saying his mother was a Miss Lewknor (unnamed)
> Actually, we don't. Vivian's Visitations (the source for the Lewknor maternity) is *not* a document, just an occasionally-sloppy and overreaching secondary source.
> > We have zero documents saying these two documents are speaking about the exact same person.
> See posts about the actual 1564 visitation, rather than Vivians flawed rendering of it. In the Pollard pedigree it makes the same Robert marry both women, and in the Squire pedigree it shows Lewis as son of Robert Pollard by Joan Marwood, daughter of William Marwood and Agnes Squire. While this last name differs from the lawsuit, they are clearly representing the same relationships. Thus you have two documents both calling Lewis son of Joan/Jane Marwood, and one sometimes-sloppy natiquarian calling Lewis son of the same Robert Pollard's other wife. I know what conclusion I would reach regarding them being the same Lewis.

I note that at this point Vivian is significantly different than the published 1564 visitation for the Pollard family.

Vivian:
John Pollard m. Elinor Coplestone
Walter Pollard m. Joan Baron
Richard Pollard m. Margaret Cockworthy
Anthony Pollard m. Petronell Chudleigh
John Pollard m. Elizabeth Bevil
Avis Pollard, m. Walter Pollard
Lewis Pollard, s.p.
Anthony Pollard
Robert Pollard m. Lewkenor of Sussex
Sir Lewis Pollard
Thomas Pollard
Sir John Pollard KG
Anne Pollard m. John Wood

Published visitation (combining Pollard and Squires pedigrees):
John Pollarde m. Eleanor Coplestone
Walter Pollarde m. Joan Baron
Richard Pollarde m. Margaret Cockworthy
Anthony Pollarde m. Petronell Chudleigh
Anthony Pollarde (2)
John Pollarde (3)
Isabel Pollarde
Anne Pollarde
Thomasine Pollarde
Martha Pollarde
Lewis Pollarde (2) s.p.
Robert Pollarde m.1 Joan Marwode, m.2 Lewknor of Sussex
Sir Lewis Pollarde
Robert Pollarde (2)

The kicker is that Vivian is citing a different manuscript copy of the same visitation for this part of his pedigree.

What a mess.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:12:09 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> I note that at this point Vivian is significantly different than the published 1564 visitation for the Pollard family.

Drat. Google nuked my indents, making it gibberish.

Vivian:
1 John Pollard m. Elinor Coplestone
11 Walter Pollard m. Joan Baron
111 Richard Pollard m. Margaret Cockworthy
1111 Anthony Pollard m. Petronell Chudleigh
1112 John Pollard m. Elizabeth Bevil
1113 Avis Pollard, m. Walter Pollard
112 Lewis Pollard, s.p.
113 Anthony Pollard
12 Robert Pollard m. Lewkenor of Sussex
121 Sir Lewis Pollard
122 Thomas Pollard
13 Sir John Pollard KG
14 Anne Pollard m. John Wood

Published visitation (combining Pollard and Squires pedigrees):

1 John Pollarde m. Eleanor Coplestone
11 Walter Pollarde m. Joan Baron
111 Richard Pollarde m. Margaret Cockworthy
1111 Anthony Pollarde m. Petronell Chudleigh
1112 Anthony Pollarde (2)
1113 John Pollarde (3)
1114 Isabel Pollarde
1115 Anne Pollarde
1116 Thomasine Pollarde
1117 Martha Pollarde
112 Lewis Pollarde (2) s.p.
113 Robert Pollarde m.1 Joan Marwode, m.2 Lewknor of Sussex
1131 Sir Lewis Pollarde
12 Robert Pollarde (2)

taf

[taf]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:12:09 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> The kicker is that Vivian is citing a different manuscript copy of the same visitation for this part of his pedigree.
>
> What a mess.

On further investigation, this is likely VIvian's doing and not a conflict between manuscript copies of the Devon visitation. He had earlier published in his Cornwall volume a pedigree based on that county's 1574 visitation (otherwise-unpublished). His pedigree in the Devon volume matches the Cornwall one in all the details differing from the published Devon visitation. He appears to have just copied the Cornwall version and cited it to the Devon visitation, either not noticing the differences or ignoring them so as not to have conflicting pedigrees in his two volumes.

taf